Jump to content

Talk:Kate Austen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

most

Beautifull Girl E V E R

Kate's last scene

[edit]

I don't think the way you referred to Kate releasing her dark side is an effective representation of what happened. She merely starts holding Claire's hand and stares at her affectionately. If the intent of what she was doing was just illuminating some bisexual carnal desire, please confirm with the developers. It may look like that, but without a source to say exactly, who knows? - Also it doesn't add up that she suddenly gets attracted to Claire and then in the afterlife she's back with Jack as if nothing ever happened. ~~ P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.91.55 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's Name

[edit]

There is some disagreement over whether the character should be referred to by the surname "Austin" or "Ryan." Any thoughts?Bjones

  • We're using the childhood name as given in the episode Born to Run. Whether this is Kate's real REAL REAL name is anyone's guess, since she's had at least 3 in Season 1, but being that Kate Austin pre-dates the others, it's our best guess for now. Baryonyx 19:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, originally I contended that we should use "Kate Ryan" because that was what ABC was using in their promotional material, and that's how the character was referred to by other media sources. Funny thing, however, since then, on OceanicFlight815.com's bio for "Kate Ryan" she's being listed as "Kate Austen" -- and now on IMDB, it's spelled the same way. So it may be that we have her original surname spelled wrong! LeFlyman 06:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, I propose that the article name be changed to conform to this seemingly accepted spelling. LeFlyman 18:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go with Austen, but I think we should refer to her, for the most past, as merely "Kate" on Lost-related articles unless of course we're talking about her last name such as an episode summary. That at the very least cuts down on problems whether it's Ryan, Austin, Austen, or some future name she uses that may be considered her real name. K1Bond007 05:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last year all these sites had her as Kate Ryan while I maintained that we had no official surname. They were ALL wrong. Now all these sites are saying Austen? Where did they get this information from? Is there another official source that has given them that spelling? If so, change it. If not, leave it alone, since we have a 50% chance of being right, and so do they, but for us it's a big deal to change that one letter, them, not so much. Baryonyx 19:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And ABC doesn't count as an official source. The people in the marketing department have no clue what's going on in the producers' story. Official source = the writers and the producers. Not even the actors, since they're kept in the dark until they get a script. Baryonyx 19:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The DVDs do... K1Bond007 says that the DVD subtitles have it as Austen, then Austen it is. :) Baryonyx 20:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone posted up Katherine... I don't know of any source that gives the first name as Katherine, and unless that's confirmed it's speculative. Her name could be Kathryn, Katherine, or just plain Kate. There's no reason to post that unless it can be corroborated. Baryonyx 08:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moved page to Kate Austen. If any more evidence should warrant that Austen is incorrect, just change it back. Squidward2602 18:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Austen is the spelling used by the Others in the list seen in Three Minutes. I believe their resources trump those of any press release or website. OGRastamon (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is there now a confirmed source that Kate's first name is in fact 'Katherine'? NowotnyPL 20:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was confirmed as early as May 11, 2005, in Born to Run (season 1, episode 22), with the following dialogue between Kate and her mother where both Kate herself and her mother refer to her as "Katherine":
- Kate: Mom? It's me, Katie.
- Diane: Katherine?
- Kate: It's me, Katherine.
Between "Katherine", "Katie" and "Kate", it seems most likely that her real first name is "Katherine" and that the other two are nicknames. Asclepias 19:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In What Kate Did, the spelling of her last name is written as Austen on her army-father's sign on his desk. :) 85.166.235.9
  • Now on oceanicflight815.com & tv.com it has her listed as Kate Ryan.
  • Doesn't her mother call her Katherine near the beginning of "What Kate Did"? I'm almost positive I remember hearing that.

Removed Speculation

[edit]

Just excised this rather trivial speculative section:

She revealed in Walkabout that she is a vegetarian, so she presumably survives on the island by eating fruit, possibly from Sun's garden, or perhaps bananas and other fruits that grow naturally on the island (mentioned by Claire in the episode Raised By Another), although many of the trees on the Island have been "picked clean", so this is probably becoming more difficult.

—LeFlyman 05:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kate: Sex Symbol?

[edit]

Almost every show has a lust icon in it, from 7 of 9 in Star Trek through to .. well, you get the point. I feel that this article should address the fact that she is a contemporary sex symbol as far as this series goes, she has quite a cult following of male fans out there from what I have heard, so it might definately be worth a mention.

Done. OGRastamon (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The potential downside is the hapless fans who'll post requesting naked photos of her be thrown up. :P Jachin 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, speaking of that, if anyone has any naked photos, my email address is ... Jachin 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone else catch Alex (Tania Raymonde) grab her breasts in the finale? Joffeloff 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More is not better

[edit]

More and more keeps getting added to this bio in particular--to my mind, these bios are not intended to contain everything that has ever happened to the character. We're badly losing the forest for the trees here. I'm going to pare out unnecessary detail, and leave the plot summaries to other pages. Would welcome any thoughts before I start paring. --PKtm 01:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree... quite a few of the Lost pages have started to become completist, and most of the newer editors we're seeing aren't editing with the realization that these characters are still in the process of development and will remain so possibly for a few more years, so having every detail of every scene an actor takes part in is neither feasible nor useful. However, we're in the middle of working on the Season pages ATM, so perhaps it would be best if we turned our attentions as a group on those, and then onto the characters? Baryonyx 07:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems like these things get on a roll, and if we can start stemming the tide early, it'll be easier than doing it all later. I agree about the importance of the Season pages, of course, but I'll still probably start paring down the most egregious of the excessive bios...--PKtm 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm....what?

[edit]

Why is Kate Austen linked from the "list of anarchists" page?

A confusion with anarchist writer Kate Cooper Austin perhaps? OGRastamon (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard going to the bathroom

[edit]

In The Other 48 Days Bernard is found in a tree, strapped in an airplane seat, so he is apparently not in the bathroom when the plane crashes. It is stated in Walkabout that Bernard was in the tail section when the plane crashed, but not for which reason. I don't have access to "Walkabout" so I cannot recall her exact wording. But these facts do not add up, unless they were separately seated. The only explanation I can think of is that Bernard grabbed an empty seat and strapped himself at the first sign of airplane malfunction - but empty seats on 'round-the-world flights are not that abundant, right? Also, from "The Other 48 Days" and later, Bernard does not appear such a resourceful person.

Is there some other information available in the series that explains this, then it should be cited. Until then, the bathroom story stays here:

Though the writers abandoned this idea for Kate's character, Rose, who Jack is sitting across the aisle from in the plane, is separated from her husband Bernard, who went to the bathroom when the plane crashed.[1]

Arru 20:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that, heroically, a person gave up his seat for Bernard or that some people just weren't in their seats during the crash, as we know Charlie was in the bathroom getting high. There are always backstorys to everything, and only the writers can get into it, if needed. 138.88.218.75 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, of course it could be. But it could also be that they were separately seated, and that doesn't seem less likely. What I was really asking is if there is any actual material (mainly screenplay from Lost) that says Bernard was going to the bathroom? Arru 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Rose says it herself in the pilot. Ausir 18:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Sorry if this sounds stupid but, in trivia it says she 'fell in love' as far as I know their getting married, has she actually said she is in love? --- Ion Black

What episode was Kate not in?

[edit]

Just curious what episode Kate wasn't in because according to the page she didn't appear in one.

One of Them

[edit]

She was in a flashback. Sergeant Major Sam Austen (her father) is holding a picture of her. Check the trivia on its page. --154.20.217.225 05:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the picture?

[edit]

As the title says, every major Lost character has a picture on the site above his "stats". Why not Kate? Aetherfukz 05:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since all pictures of "Kate" are copyrighted, they must meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Fair use. The previous image was just her looking at the camera, a picture that showed us only what Kate looks like. Since this is the same as Evangeline Lilly, we can't use it, because fair use images of living people aren't allowed. However, if we found an image that showed Kate doing something that distinguished itself from a normal picture of Evangeline Lilly, that would have a better fair use claim. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This image does qualify as fair use, as does every other cast image on Wikipedia (I image there are thousands). Please see here. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are fair use, but.. Wikipedia has higher restrictions than the basic fair use law, see WP:FU. -- Ned Scott 20:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand than, why is there a picture on every member of the Lost cast (and some clearly don't show them doing "Lost stuff"), but the only one that isn't considered fair-use would be Kate's? Does the actress have some special issues regarding her photos? Aetherfukz 21:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No... I just haven't removed the other images yet. -- Ned Scott 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So basically that means every single picture of a cast member from any series/movie where they are not showing "doing some stuff from the series/movie" has to be taken down? I mean, where do you draw the line - for example: A picture with a guy from Lost standing on the beach in his full series wardrobe is (IMHO) different than a picture of the same actor in front of a white wall from a model shooting. But nontheless, would one of these pictures be acceptable? http://msn.dvdrama.com/imagescrit/S_lost_kate_29.jpg or http://www.dvdrama.com/imagescrit/lost_kate_26.jpg Aetherfukz 21:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My replies pasted from Talk:Charlie_Pace#Does_not_fail_FUC.:
Original message:
Due to the nature of the show Lost (as Edward knows all so well) there are no suits or leaving the island to pop to a movie festival, the image portrays a fictional character in the fictional surroundings, You could not portray the character with a photo of the actor doing general things because that wouldn’t be portraying the character at all. Matthew Fenton (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replies to Ned:
Ned you are beginning to get way ahead of your self now with your interpretations of policy, I will say this as bluntly as possible: You are wrong. — I've reverted your removal of the character image. if you wish to begin using actor images to portray a character then get a consensus as laid out in WP:CONSENSUS. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This is the only request I will make towards you: If you make unconstructivee dits to these pages again I will not hesitate to create a user conduct RfC as your recent behaviour is becoming intolerable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above replies the images do not fail the FUC. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, if you wish to make an ass of yourself then I will not stop you. I was trying to help you guys since you were being targeted again by the same user who got the screenshots removed from List of Lost episodes. By showing that we gave more thought to the images, we could have easily strengthened our fair use rationale. Now you're being down right lazy about the process. I clearly have stated over and over again, you can use a copyrighted image, but it needs to have more thought in it than the current ones. -- Ned Scott 23:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a new picture for Kate's image. I still think we need a better image, but this is at least an improvement. -- Ned Scott 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a new picture, just the old one distorted vertically. What did you do to the old, un-distorted one, I can't seem to find it in the old revisions anymore? The picture now just looks rubbish. Aetherfukz 00:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, somehow my browser used the new width and height for the new picture, but was still showing the old one, after chache clearing and reloading the new one shows up. Although I have to admit this doesn't show her anymore "Lost" than the old one... Aetherfukz 00:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Universe

[edit]

I don't like the "in universe" tag at the top of the page. I don't see the point in it. People know Kate is not a real person because the first person says "...is a fictional character". Do other people see the point in it? Can it be taken down or is there something I would need to do first? Codutalk 15:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you.. the "in-universe police" have been mass tagging (less then 20 seconds aprt) articles en mass... feel free to remove it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the article is worded as if its a biography written by someone on the island rather than an encyclopedia article about a fictional character on a television show. Don't remove the tag unless the article is rewritten. As the Manual of Style states, "Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective." --Kmsiever 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody should get confused now. Problem sorted. I'll do all the other characters as soon as I get time. Codutalk 14:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just sloppy and poor writing. Did you read the MOS that I (and the in-universe template) linked to? There are examples of good out-of universe article in the MOS. Simply adding "the character" to every occurrence of "Kate" does not magically transform in-universe writing. --Kmsiever 20:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't in-universe in the begining - isn't close to in-universe now. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made very little effort. everybody knows she isn't a real character, and the "in universe" rubbish is really stupid. Codutalk 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just couldn't agree with you more - WP:WAF was established because fictional related articles where surpassing in quality that of things like Birds, Slugs or cars. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it's not like you can't make out from the article that this is a fictional character, it even says so on the first line. And the article talks about what happens to here in some episodes also. But I'm not very fond of She fictionally grew up - it just sounds strange I think. How does one "fictionally grow up"? Aetherfukz 21:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You guys have totally missed the point. It's not about making the fiction clear (which is a separate template), it's about the majority of the article being about something in-universe, and very much lacking in out-of-universe context. -- Ned Scott 23:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems to me that you too miss the point at least a little. How are you supposed to talk about out-of-universe context, when the whole article is about a fictional character from a fictional universe? Would it suit you better if somewhere in the article it talks about how the Red Socks won Superbowl XXII while the filming was in progress (don't sue me on that I have absolutely no clue about sports :D)? This seems to get out of hand really... Aetherfukz 00:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not able to have out-of-universe context then one should not write an article on that topic (that is, say, different from summarizing the character to aid the larger Lost info, but that wouldn't really require an entire article). That being said, I think this article actually has great potential for out of universe information. Evangeline Lilly and other people from Lost have been in lots and lots of interviews that talk about their characters, character inspirations, critic responses about a character, and probably a lot more than I can think of right now.
The big problem with these articles is they don't really help anyone. You can learn all of this info by watching the show, and the articles should not be a replacement for watching the show. There's so much room for more information in such a great show as this. If you think this article, as it is now, is the best we can do, then you are mistaken. These templates are not an attack on the article, they're a way to help us improve the articles. I understand that it might not be obvious on how to improve the article right away, but that's why we have talk pages and such. I honestly believe that following WP:WAF is not only possible, but will greatly improve this article in all of our eyes. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that these articles have no value. The only reason I am currently browsing these pages is that I am all caught up with Lost and eagerly awaiting the next episode. Exhaustive encyclopedic articles (especially of fictional or trivial matters) are exactly why I joined Wikipedia. OGRastamon (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added referances to which episodes the things listed happened in, but only prior to the crash. Hopefully this makes it more clear that the character is fictional. I will do the after crash later, on less someone else wants to, then I think it will be pretty clear that the character is fictional, and we can get rid of the tag. Agreed? codu (t/c) 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that these articles can be improved and expanded upon, I think that Ned Scott has brought up good points and good ideas for improvement that we should continue to work on. Thanks, Ned, for your vigilance and insight. Codu, I have no problems getting rid of the tag once citations are in - there is plenty of room for more out-of-universe stuff, which we should definitely try and work in, but there's always "more" that could be done, it doesn't really need a tag for that - we have identified stuff in this discussion for long-term improvement efforts, that should be enough. Riverbend 20:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kateandhorse1.jpg

[edit]

Image:Kateandhorse1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profession: Fugitive

[edit]

I just LOL'd after reading this. I guess we haven't seen her having any real jobs though. -Henry W. Schmitt 06:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. - Mark Jensen (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age 34?

[edit]

I don't know how old Kate is, but is Evangeline really supposed to portray someone who is 34 old? I would've believed 24.

  • I remember Shannon saying "What are you, like two years older than me?" in Pilot: Part 2. Shannon is 20 (I think it's in "Confidence Man," when Hurley approaches when making his list of people on the island. She says she's 20 years old and lives on Crap Hole Island.)
  • Also, the actor was 25 when the show aired the first time, and she's 28 now.
  • I just went through some of the article history. Her age (in Season 1 section) changes from 24 to 27, and now 34 at the Before island section.

So, as I see it. There should be a source or the age should be removed. - Mark Jensen (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Lewis, WA?

[edit]

In All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues Kate makes a comment to Jack about her childhood. She claimed that her dad had been stationed at Fort Lewis, WA, and that she used to go hiking together with him (hence the reason for her tracking skills). This seems to contradict where, in this article, it says "Born and raised in Iowa". Thoughts? Shimawa zen (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her parents were divorced and her mother had custody of her. So it's possible for her dad to have been stationed at Fort Lewis, WA and for her to have been born and raised in Iowa. JaterGirl (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Personality" Section

[edit]

This section, as of 11/10/08, both fails to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy and contains original research. Calling Kate childish, and using phrases like "much like a cornered animal" are violations of both policies. This is one editor's interpretation of the character. The section should be cleaned up (possibly using verifiable sources who come to some of the same conclusions) or removed entirely.

Clarification Needed

[edit]

In the section for Season 1, I discovered this curious and seemingly irrelevant line "She later informs Nikki and Paulo of its original whereabouts." As a Lost newbie, I looked up Nikki and Paulo and discovered that they are not introduced until season three, yet there is a season one reference. This line seems irrelevant and may possibly be out of sequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radmod (talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's Visit from Jacob

[edit]

Done to prevent possible edit war. As we saw in the episode "The Incident", Jacob visited 6 of the Oceanic 815 Survivor's going back as far as the 1970's to as recent as just a day before Aijiri Airways flight 315 left. While I can't say we know exactly WHY Jacob visited them, or under the circumstances that he did, there must have been a reason for it, and it deserves to be noted that Kate was visited by Jacob, even when she was a young girl. Whippletheduck (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, the reason why Jacob visited Locke is very important, but the ones of Sawyer and Kate aren't still important for them.Tintor2 (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could not disagree more. The fact he visited them is VERY important, albeit I admit I don't know why he visited them in the manner he did as opposed to Hurley. There is obviously a reason for it, and it is better to keep it in the article (and remove it later if it turns out to be for no reason), but if you have watched the show, we know that NOTHING happens on this show for coincidence, and that there is definitely some reason for Jacob visiting them the way he did. Whippletheduck (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in the next season it is explained, but now it remains unimportant and pointless.Additionally, the plot section in this article is very long and adding this unexplained meeting would make it longer.Tintor2 (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was no point to it, it would not have mattered. When Richard visited John Locke when he was 5, did they explain things? Not really. Hell, when they revealed Jack and Kate had escaped the Island at the end of season 3, they did not say how, did they? Season Finale's are often for cliffhangers (especially with this show). So Kate's meeting with Jacob is noteworthy, as I am sure there is a point to it. Of course, if I am wrong, and by the end of next season nothing is explained then by all means remove the reference. Whippletheduck (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kate_Austen&oldid=1242296534"